Izzy Folau

[TRF_heineken]

Rephrase then
1) As per your religion, do unrepented sinners go to hell?
2) According to what your religion preaches, is homosexuality a sin?

The beauty of this is that you cornered yourself into a situation where, if you answer, you would be describing yourself as a homophobe, and if you don't, people would infer it nonetheless but also add hypocrite to the equation.
Have some self-respect and at least be brave enough to nail your colours to the mast, instead of being a wimp and hiding behind this god of yours.

How pathetic does a belief have to be that you aren't even willing to say it out loud?

I take strong exception to what you are saying about my religion here. There is really no need to attack my beliefs.

I think I've explained my stance on this matter on several lengthy posts in this thread, and if you are too lazy or narrowminded to read what I said, or don't understand what I'm saying then it's okay, but it's pointless to answer over and over. I'm not going to do that.

Good, see, this i can understand and can work with. Two conflicting rights. I agree, but not hate speech as, first, i understand he would have to be prosecuted if that was the case and that hasn't happened and second, for that to be true you would need a ruling implying that a verse from the bible constitutes hate speech. I would chip in monetarily for that to happen, but i dont think it will. I'll believe it when i see it.

But lets keep it simple: two conflicting rights. Not very acquainted with how it works in Australia, but i suppose it's not that different than elsewhere, so when you have two conflicting rights it's either specified somewhere which one takes precedent or (as i presume it will be here) the judicial makes a call.
Lets wait for the ruling and see how it goes.

As far as i understand, there was no social media clause in Folau's contract.


I see differences, but i dont understand the moral part. This is a legal issue.
Lying, fornicating, being an atheist and getting drunk are (under the right circumstances) all legal.
The questions here are two and only two as far as i understand.
1) Is what Folau posted illegal?
2) Given Folau's contract, can this be unilaterally terminated by his employer because of what he posted.

I think Folau is a world class moron, an imbecile if you will, but i believe the answer to both questions is no.
Let's wait and see.

Again, here, you are not contextually constructing a good argument. You keep on hammering on one single part, but you can't do that as the context must be included in your argument.

RA can't prosecute Folau for hate speech, they don't have that authority, but they can use the laws, and using their own internal processes of disciplinary proceedings, terminate a contract.

If a person makes a racist comment, he can be fired from his job, but the chance is very slim that he will be prosecuted for hate speech as it depends on the circumstances.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Provided you don't impinge public safety, public order, health or morals and the rights and freedoms of other people. (As per Australian Human Rights legislation ICCPR article 18)

Effectively it is saying beliefs are protected, but that protection is not absolute when what you do or say comes into conflict with laws (such as laws on hate speech).

Close the thread here, this is the answer!

We've also gone beyond civil cases here which is what this is, there's been plenty of misinformation regarding European non-compete clauses (biazarrely) and loads of other dubious "law" in this thread.

 

[ncurd]

Dubious law on the internet! Say it isn't so.

 

[BobbyM]

I see differences, but i dont understand the moral part. This is a legal issue.
——————————————
For clarity, some of the differences inclide, but are not limited to, the following;

1) sexuality is a protected characteristic, in the same way gender or race is
2) drinking, having sex, lying, stealing and believing in another god or none is all fundamentally a choice. Now I appreciate that for certain people (including those in my immediate family) some of these areas are effectively not a choice, given the involuntary chemical reactions that go on in their brain that compel them to seek alcohol (for example). However there ultimately was a choice in the first instance to consume alcohol.

I'd say that, scientifically speaking, there's sufficient evidence to suggest that whether you are attracted to males or females is not a choice. Do you concur? There are warehouses full of scientific studies on the topic which I recommend considering in coming to a balanced current view.

On the assumption that you're with me to this point, I conclude by noting;

Punishing someone for who they are (I.e. homosexual) rather than what they do (i.e. have sex, consume alcohol etc), is the point of it being morally wrong.

 

[BobbyM]

@BobbyM

This is probably the simplest and fairest article i've read about the situation.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/leg...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1556860566

Thank you for sharing. Having read the article now a couple of times, what the lawyer appears to be saying about this chimes with precisely what I've been saying over the course of this thread, particularly with regard to the focus on the code of conduct and his knowing lack of complaince with it. Kind of hilarious really as my knowledge of Australian employment law is as deep as my knowledge of Australian rules football (they have 12 players?!?!).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I take strong exception to what you are saying about my religion here. There is really no need to attack my beliefs.

So it's ok for you to say that your religion preaches that homosexuality is a sin, but it's not ok for others to point out how that is homophobic?

I attack your (or folau's) beliefs because, no matter how you sugar coat it, they are the root of this problem. They discriminate people based on something that is not a choice and has no impact on other people's lives.

The problem is not folau speaking up. The problem is that, like you, he actually believes in that.

And i find the "I take strong exception" line quite cute coming from you. You get to call me a racist for something you misunderstood a month ago, but when i call you a homophobe after you said you believe homosexuality is a sin, that's faux pas.
Apparently, you like to throw rocks at other people's houses without realizing that glass mansion of yours.

RA can't prosecute Folau for hate speech, they don't have that authority, but they can use the laws, and using their own internal processes of disciplinary proceedings, terminate a contract.

First, i never said RA should have prosecuted him. Second, read the link i posted. It says that, at the very least, whether they can terminate his contract the way they did/intend to, is arguable.

If a person makes a racist comment, he can be fired from his job, but the chance is very slim that he will be prosecuted for hate speech as it depends on the circumstances.

In order for that to be true a judge would have to rule that paraphrasing the bible is hate speech. As much as i'd like that to be true, i'll believe it when i see it.

 

[TRF_heineken]

So it's ok for you to say that your religion preaches that homosexuality is a sin, but it's not ok for others to point out how that is homophobic?

I attack your (or folau's) beliefs because, no matter how you sugar coat it, they are the root of this problem. They discriminate people based on something that is not a choice and has no impact on other people's lives.

The problem is not folau speaking up. The problem is that, like you, he actually believes in that.

And i find the "I take strong exception" line quite cute coming from you. You get to call me a racist for something you misunderstood a month ago, but when i call you a homophobe after you said you believe homosexuality is a sin, that's faux pas.
Apparently, you like to throw rocks at other people's houses without realizing that glass mansion of yours.


First, i never said RA should have prosecuted him. Second, read the link i posted. It says that, at the very least, whether they can terminate his contract the way they did/intend to, is arguable.


In order for that to be true a judge would have to rule that paraphrasing the bible is hate speech. As much as i'd like that to be true, i'll believe it when i see it.

Where, have I ever said that I'm a homophobe? Where have I once condemned anyone of any sexual orientation??

You are in essence saying that because I'm Christian, I must be a homophobe because of my faith?? Congratulations on painting us all under the same brush.

 

[ncurd]

Where, have I ever said that I'm a homophobe? Where have I once condemned anyone of any sexual orientation??

You are in essence saying that because I'm Christian, I must be a homophobe because of my faith?? Congratulations on painting us all under the same brush.

This is part of the problem some people are conflating it with a universal Christian belief which it is not. You might as well say all Christians believe the world was created in 7 days.

 

[TRF_heineken]

This is part of the problem some people are conflating it with a universal Christian belief which it is not. You might as well say all Christians believe the world was created in 7 days.

And that Sunday is the Sabbath. While there are so many Christian beliefs that Saturday is the Sabbath.

It bothers me that people who are uneducated in something like faith, can go on a tirade of argument, yet we who are educated in that area, have to defend our very existance at every corner.

Once again I want to reiterate, I'm a Christian, not a fanatic, and I'm part of a church, not a sect!

 

[ncurd]

I can see why its frustrating, I grew up going to Sunday School. I don't subscribe to any relgion now but I understand it.
My experience is the majority of people of strong faith is they are kind reasonable people who take what lessons they learn about compassion and apply it to their everyday lives. We don't hear from that group often its either the strak raving mad fanatics or those who claim to be of a belief but don't actually attend or study their own systems of belief. The only time you'll see them in Church is big events such as weddings. Its a shame because it taints the entire as they give an unfair reflection of the faith as a whole.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Where, have I ever said that I'm a homophobe?

Here, post #195

Our church's national body's stance on homosexuality is that it's wrong, and will not be condoned at our church. But our reverend's doesn't go and spew hatred towards homosexuals or that we as church-goers should have a hatred towards them or any other belief/religion/sexuality/race etc.

You are part of a church that believes that homosexuals, unless they repent, will go to hell.

Change homosexuals for blacks, or jews and see if that offers some perspective. What's next? kkk members who claim to go to clan meetings because they like the fire displays and the attire? But they are not racist?
Nah, hell no.
You are by action or omission, knowingly associating yourself with an institution who's official stance is that homosexuals, just for being so, deserve eternal damnation.
If that is not homophobic i have no idea what is.

 

[BobbyM]

To avoid getting into accusations etc, might i helpfully suggest that just because you are part, even an active part, of a certain religious group, doesn't mean that you ascribe to all the views represented by the leaders of that religious group. As an example, the Catholic Church is "against" abortion in the vast majority of cases. However, my mother (who goes to church 4-5 days per week for Mass) does not agree with this particular view. It doesn't stop her going to Mass or taking the sacrament or chastising me for not getting married in a church.

Many religious groups are a broad church (pun 100% intended). I wouldn't want to suggest that someone believes something or values something just because the leaders of the religious group they identify with say it.

 

[smartcooky]

Here, post #195


You are part of a church that believes that homosexuals, unless they repent, will go to hell.

Change homosexuals for blacks, or jews and see if that offers some perspective. What's next? kkk members who claim to go to clan meetings because they like the fire displays and the attire? But they are not racist?
Nah, hell no.
You are by action or omission, knowingly associating yourself with an institution who's official stance is that homosexuals, just for being so, deserve eternal damnation.
If that is not homophobic i have no idea what is.

Complete and utter bollocks! You have no idea what you are talking about?

Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
Does does this mean all Christians believe women cannot be teachers or leaders?

Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
Does does this mean all Christians support genocide?

Exodus 22:18: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."
Does does this mean all Christians support the murdering of witches?

Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
Does does this mean all Christians support infanticide?

Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."
Does does this mean all Christians support slavery?

Now I am an atheist, but I will support the right of the religious to believe in their religion, and I DO NOT tar them all with the brush of the bad things their religion might contain in their holy books. The Bible was written down in the middle east a couple of thousand years ago by a bunch of itinerant goat herders.. only fanatics believe anything and everything in it should be taken literally and believed 100%. Even high ranking clergy understand that the Bible is not the Last Word of God...

"The Bible is like a person; if you torture it long enough you can get it to say anything you want it to say"
- Rev Dr. Francis H. Wade - Rector, St Alban's Episcopal Church

 

[TRF_heineken]

Here, post #195


You are part of a church that believes that homosexuals, unless they repent, will go to hell.

Change homosexuals for blacks, or jews and see if that offers some perspective. What's next? kkk members who claim to go to clan meetings because they like the fire displays and the attire? But they are not racist?
Nah, hell no.
You are by action or omission, knowingly associating yourself with an institution who's official stance is that homosexuals, just for being so, deserve eternal damnation.
If that is not homophobic i have no idea what is.

Again I ask, where have I personally said that I'm a homophobe????

My church says that it's wrong and won't condone it at church.

But we don't turn people who are homosexual away from the church. Same goes for murderers, rapists, adulterers, and any other wrong/improper act.

They are more than welcome to attend church and be part of the congregation. The only way they won't be allowed is if they are under church disciplinary action. And that is when they do something in church or on church grounds and it's something like stealing church money, doing something improper at church, exposing themselves by form of nudity to others in the congregation.

But we don't turn people away just because they're gay.

So please try and make a better effort.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

tupou so does not speak for all pacific islanders. they may speak for tongans but in samoa we got a 3rd gender; fafafine.
folaus is a dik. end of story.

it's upsetting that the media is portraying this as it being hard for pacific islanders because they feel like they are being marginalised for their beliefs. not all pacific islanders have folau's beliefs ffs. an article i was reading was saying how rugby australia needed to make it clearer to island players that the issue isn't about their beliefs, it's about not airing them. nonsense. that was the case for folau, because he has offensive beliefs, but other christian islanders don't necessarily have those same beliefs. we need some pacific island players to come out and state that they don't all have the same beliefs, otherwise those on the fence might start supporting folau's beliefs because they feel like their religion (which at a high level is the same as folau's religion) is being attacked. Michael Jones came out stating he didn't support Folau's views last time around. I'm not sure if he said anything this time?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
Does does this mean all Christians believe women cannot be teachers or leaders?

Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
Does does this mean all Christians support genocide?

Exodus 22:18: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."
Does does this mean all Christians support the murdering of witches?

Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
Does does this mean all Christians support infanticide?

Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."
Does does this mean all Christians support slavery?

Scary thing is Israel apparently believes all this, according to what his sect/church (I don't know the offical term) stands for. Maybe you should post that to his twitter or soemthing. just replace "all christians" with "Israel Folau"

 

[Bean]

This is a big problem for Aussie Rugby. Apparently they'll be in huge financial trouble if (when) they lose this legal battle with Falou.

Falou is protected by Religious freedoms.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

This is a big problem for Aussie Rugby. Apparently they'll be in huge financial trouble if (when) they lose this legal battle with Falou.

Falou is protected by Religious freedoms.

I see you have clearly read through the previous posts explaining the legality of religious freedoms...

 

[Bean]

I see you have clearly read through the previous posts explaining the legality of religious freedoms...

Don't need to. Falou is protected by religious freedoms. Rugby Australia can implement policies regarding hate speech etc, but that doesn't override existing laws. They can tear up his contract, it just won't be legal.

 

[mania]

to get rid of folau all someone has to ask is what does god have instore for the muslims (...or insert any other faith in here)?
d4m the fur will fly then